Partner-Track Anxiety in Women Attorneys: A Trauma Therapist Names What’s Actually Happening
Partner-track anxiety in women attorneys isn’t self-doubt. It’s a rational response to a system built around criteria that are opaque, inconsistently applied, and designed for someone else. This post names the clinical reality, the neurobiology of chronic evaluative threat, and a path forward that doesn’t require pretending the system is fair before you can begin to navigate it honestly.
Last reviewed: June 2026 by Annie Wright, LMFT
- “Needs to Develop Leadership Presence”. A Scene from 10:22 p.m.
- What Is Partner-Track Anxiety (And What It’s Actually About)?
- The Neurobiology of Chronic Evaluative Threat
- How Partner-Track Anxiety Shows Up in Women Associates
- The Origination Credit Problem: Why Her Relationships Don’t Count the Same Way
- Both/And: You Are an Exceptional Attorney AND in a System That Doesn’t Reward Equally
- The Systemic Lens: BigLaw’s Partner Track Was Designed for Someone Else
- How to Heal / Path Forward
- Frequently Asked Questions
“Needs to Develop Leadership Presence”. A Scene from 10:22 p.m.
It’s 10:22 p.m. in a sleek but dimly lit New York office. Neha, a 35-year-old seventh-year M&A associate at a V10 firm, sits alone, the glow of her laptop screen illuminating her face. She’s just finished reviewing her annual performance evaluation for the third consecutive year. The phrase “needs to develop her leadership presence” stares back at her in cold, clinical type. What does that even mean? No concrete examples, no roadmap. Just a vague, persistent demand. Meanwhile, her male peer was commended for “exceptional client instincts.” She knows she billed 2,380 hours last year. She has two clients who ask specifically for her. Yet this elusive metric keeps her awake at night. Tomorrow, she’ll start work at 7 a.m. to get ahead, to avoid looking behind.
If your nervous system learned the safest way to exist was to manage everyone else's world, my self-paced course Enough Without the Effort is the recovery map.
In my clinical work with women attorneys, I hear versions of Neha’s story with striking regularity. The details vary. Sometimes it’s a litigation partner in Chicago, sometimes a corporate associate in Los Angeles. But the emotional architecture is consistent: exceptional performance, opaque feedback, the persistent sense of working at 110% capacity toward a finish line that keeps moving.
This isn’t imposter syndrome. This is something more specific, more accurate, and more clinical. For related context, see my posts on litigation secondary trauma in women attorneys and female general counsel burnout. Which map adjacent terrain in the attorney mental health space.
What Is Partner-Track Anxiety (And What It’s Actually About)?
In my clinical work with women attorneys, partner-track anxiety is a distinct psychological phenomenon. It’s not generalized anxiety or mere self-doubt. It’s a sustained state of hypervigilance that arises when a driven woman performs at a high level within a system whose promotion criteria are opaque, inconsistently enforced, and not fully attainable through merit alone. This anxiety is deeply relational and role-specific.
Patrick Krill, JD, LLM, attorney well-being researcher and lead author of the 2016 ABA/Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation study on lawyer mental health, documented that 61% of BigLaw associates report symptoms of anxiety. A figure notably elevated among women associates. This is not coincidence. The partner track at Am Law 100 firms creates an environment where anxiety is a rational response to chronic uncertainty, bias, and systemic double standards.
A double bind is a communication and systemic pattern first described by anthropologist Gregory Bateson and extended to gender and professional contexts by Deborah Tannen, PhD, professor of linguistics at Georgetown University. It occurs when an individual faces two mutually exclusive demands simultaneously, with negative consequences for failing to meet either. In the context of the BigLaw partner track, women lawyers are caught between being told to “be assertive to demonstrate leadership” and “don’t be too aggressive or you’ll alienate partners”. Creating an impossible standard that cannot be navigated through effort alone.
In plain terms: You’re being told to be both tough and warm at the same time. But if you lean too far either way, you risk being judged negatively. No matter what you do, you’re set up to fail on at least one dimension.
This double bind fuels the partner-track anxiety women attorneys experience. It’s a system designed for someone else. Predominantly men who have had access to informal networks and unspoken rules unavailable to most women. This anxiety is data, not just discomfort. It signals the system’s failure to accommodate women on their own terms. Not a deficiency in the women themselves. That reframe matters enormously in clinical work and in daily functioning.
The Neurobiology of Chronic Evaluative Threat
Every interaction on the partner track is an evaluation. Every email, client meeting, or firm event is a test of competence, likability, and fit. For women attorneys, this evaluative environment isn’t a one-time stressor. It’s chronic and unrelenting. Claude Steele, PhD, psychologist and professor emeritus at Stanford University, introduced the concept of stereotype threat, which is highly relevant here. Women at V10 firms are acutely aware that their performance may confirm or refute stereotypes about women in law, which imposes an additional cognitive load that consumes mental resources needed for complex legal reasoning and client management.
Neurobiologically, this sustained evaluative threat triggers the body’s stress response systems. The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis remains chronically activated, releasing cortisol and other stress hormones that impair prefrontal cortex functions like working memory, executive control, and nuanced social cognition. This explains why some women attorneys find themselves over-preparing, second-guessing, or mentally exhausted despite objectively strong performance. The nervous system is running a background threat-detection program at all times. And that program is computationally expensive.
Evaluative hypervigilance is a sustained state of heightened alertness that arises when a person’s environment persistently subjects them to evaluation based on opaque, inconsistently applied, or biased criteria. This state leads to anxiety, over-preparation, and chronic vigilance. It is especially prevalent among women attorneys navigating the BigLaw partner track, contributing to burnout and significant mental health challenges over time.
In plain terms: You’re constantly on edge, scanning every interaction for clues about how others judge you. Because the rules aren’t clear and the stakes feel impossibly high. That vigilance is exhausting. And it’s not a character flaw; it’s a nervous system doing its job in a genuinely threatening environment.
Recent studies in attorney mental health support this. In my work with women attorneys, chronic workplace stress linked to ambiguous evaluation criteria and perceived gender bias is a recurring clinical pattern that shows up across career stages. Research in legal psychology documents how stereotype-consistent evaluation practices disproportionately disadvantage women attorneys in partnership decisions.
How Partner-Track Anxiety Shows Up in Women Associates
Elaine, 33, is a sixth-year litigation associate at a V10 firm’s Chicago office. She’s known for her meticulous work and sharp courtroom presence. Partners call her “excellent on her feet.” Despite this, Elaine never declines a project. She fears saying no just once could derail her entire track. She’s worked through two vacations this year, pushing her health to the brink. She tracks every client interaction in a spreadsheet and applies religiously for client development budgets, using every dollar she’s allocated. Her body aches. But she’s terrified that doing less than everything will confirm she’s not “partner material.”
Elaine’s experience exemplifies how partner-track anxiety manifests: relentless overwork, self-imposed pressure to perform beyond capacity, and a pervasive fear of invisible failure. This anxiety can drive perfectionism. A common trait among driven women attorneys. Brené Brown, PhD, LMSW, research professor at the University of Houston and author of The Gifts of Imperfection, describes perfectionism as “the 20-ton shield we lug around thinking it will protect us, when in fact it’s the thing that’s really preventing us from taking flight.” In BigLaw, that shield is very, very heavy.
These patterns aren’t failures of character or competence. They’re adaptive responses to a system that is both demanding and opaque. Where the criteria for success shift, and where relational judgments (often coded as “leadership presence” or “business development potential”) shape outcomes in ways that have nothing to do with the quality of the legal work.
Marisol, 31, a corporate associate in her fourth year, described the anxiety as “always being in an interview I didn’t know I was in.” She never knows which dinner conversation, which casual hallway exchange, which moment of visible emotion is being mentally filed somewhere by someone with an eventual vote. That perpetual performance state is neurologically costly in ways that eventually show up as burnout, anxiety disorders, or the quiet decision to leave a firm. And often a profession. That she spent a decade preparing for. For more on how trauma-informed therapy addresses these patterns, and what executive coaching can offer in parallel, those pages offer starting points for the conversation.
The Origination Credit Problem: Why Her Relationships Don’t Count the Same Way
Partnership in BigLaw is heavily predicated on origination credit. The business a partner brings in, which translates directly into revenue and, eventually, into compensation and standing. This origination system is steeped in informal, often exclusionary networks. Golf outings, alumni events, client dinners, and private equity relationships serve as invisible gates to client origination opportunities. Gates that are more accessible to men, and specifically to men with particular social and economic backgrounds.
Herminia Ibarra, PhD, professor of organizational behavior at London Business School and author of Act Like a Leader, Think Like a Leader, has extensively researched how women’s leadership transitions are hindered by limited access to informal networks that facilitate sponsorship and client origination. Women associates are often socialized toward excellent client service and flawless execution rather than the aggressive client development style the origination system rewards. This is not a personal deficiency. It is a structural problem that gets misnamed as an individual one.
Women attorneys are frequently told they need to “build their book of business,” without acknowledgment or guidance on how the pathways to origination have historically excluded them. This erases the systemic barriers and places the burden on women to “fix” themselves into a system that wasn’t built for them. The partner-track anxiety here is compounded by the invisibility of these structural realities. The woman feels anxious not only about her own performance but about navigating a system that consistently undervalues her mode of building relationships, even when that mode is objectively superior for client retention.
The equity partner gender gap persists: women make up roughly 50% of law school graduates but only 20, 25% of equity partners, a figure that has barely moved in two decades despite decades of “pipeline” initiatives. The pipeline isn’t the problem. The gatekeeping system is. And the women inside it are living that reality every time they sit down to review an evaluation that says nothing they can actually use.
Both/And: You Are an Exceptional Attorney AND in a System That Doesn’t Reward Equally
This paradox is at the heart of partner-track anxiety. You can be genuinely exceptional and still be caught in a system that applies uneven criteria. You can work 2,200 billable hours and still be told you need to “develop your leadership presence.” You can be offered partnership and find the milestone less liberating than you imagined.
Celeste, 38, made partner at a V10 firm’s regional office after eleven years of relentless effort. She still bills 2,200 hours annually and feels like a visitor in her own firm. The achievement didn’t produce relief or belonging. Instead, it brought new pressures and an acute awareness of the costs to her health and relationships. Therapy became her refuge eighteen months after making partner. When asked how it felt, she said simply: “I got what I wanted and it changed nothing.” That sentence contains more clinical information than a year of performance reviews. It points directly to the gap between what the system promised and what it actually delivered. And to the work required to grieve that gap honestly.
This Both/And reality. Being exceptional and yet systemically marginalized. Creates a unique form of trauma. The loss is not just personal but professional: grieving the version of success you worked toward that turns out to be conditional, incomplete, or hollow. In my clinical work with women attorneys, this grieving process is often the beginning of something more sustainable. A relationship with their own ambition that’s built on their actual values rather than on what the firm told them those values should be. See my post on leaving BigLaw: the hidden identity crisis for women for what this looks like when the decision to exit is on the table.
The Systemic Lens: BigLaw’s Partner Track Was Designed for Someone Else
The Am Law 100 partner track was architected in an era when partners were predominantly white men, supported by wives who managed domestic responsibilities, enabling the 2,200 to 2,400 billable hour expectation. Although law schools now graduate roughly 50% women, the partnership rate for women has stagnated at 20, 25% for two decades. This is not a pipeline problem. It’s a structural retention and promotion barrier that has survived every diversity initiative launched against it.
The system perpetuates itself through opaque feedback loops and coded language. “Leadership presence” is often shorthand for “be more like us”. A tacit demand to conform to masculine norms of authority and self-presentation. The culture of after-hours relationship building. Client dinners, drinks, golf. Disadvantages those who don’t drink, have caregiving responsibilities, or don’t have access to the same informal networks. The origination credit system remains a gatekeeper to power and compensation that excludes women’s social networks by design, not accident.
Patrick Krill, JD, LLM, and ABA data highlight the well-being crisis in BigLaw, with women attorneys facing elevated rates of anxiety, depression, and substance use compared to their male counterparts. The billable hour model and partner-track expectations remain stubbornly unchanged, despite decades of diversification of the profession’s entry point. The diversity arrives at the bottom. The structure remains untouched at the top.
This systemic lens is not about excusing individual behavior or abandoning ambition. It’s about accurate diagnosis: seeing what’s actually causing the anxiety, rather than locating it entirely inside the woman who’s experiencing it. Accurate diagnosis is the prerequisite for effective treatment. Whether that treatment is clinical, strategic, or both.
How to Heal / Path Forward
The clinical work begins by naming partner-track anxiety not as a personal failing but as a rational response to an irrational system. That naming matters. It shifts the locus of the problem from the woman’s psychology to the structural conditions she’s navigating. And it creates the psychological space needed to actually work on what’s within her control.
Therapeutically, this involves deconstructing the anxiety: exploring what partnership truly means to you, and separating your authentic desires from internalized perfectionism and validation-seeking patterns that BigLaw amplifies and exploits. Childhood patterns of perfectionism often get triggered and magnified in the relentless environment of BigLaw, creating a toxic feedback loop where the workplace becomes the arena for re-enacting early wounds around approval, visibility, and worth. Identifying that loop is the first step to disrupting it.
Executive coaching can complement therapy by offering strategic tools for navigating opaque feedback, building origination networks that fit your actual relationship style, and clarifying whether to stay and fight or exit strategically. This is nuanced work requiring tailored, trauma-informed interventions. Not generic “leadership development” that assumes the system is fair and teaches you to perform better within it.
If you’re navigating partner-track anxiety, know that therapy with me is confidential even if your firm uses a shared Employee Assistance Program. Your individual sessions and records remain private. You can also explore executive coaching for strategic work, or the Fixing the Foundations™ program for foundational relational healing. And if you’re not sure where to start, connect directly to have a conversation about what fits.
The partner track is a high-stakes, high-cost system. Healing means reclaiming your own definition of success, setting limits that reflect your actual values, and dismantling the internalized messages that keep you locked in the double bind. Working twice as hard for half the acknowledgment, and telling yourself the gap is your fault. You deserve more than that. And you deserve support in building it.
What Clarity Looks Like: Moving from Anxiety to Agency
One of the most useful distinctions I make in clinical work with women attorneys is the difference between anxiety and agency. Anxiety. The hypervigilant scanning, the over-preparation, the chronic worry about invisible failure. Operates in reaction to the system’s ambiguity. Agency operates from clarity about one’s own values and choices, regardless of what the system is doing.
The path from partner-track anxiety to professional agency isn’t linear, and it doesn’t require leaving BigLaw. Some women do leave. And that exit, done with clarity and intention, can be genuinely liberating. But some women find, through the therapeutic process, that they want to stay and fight. And they need support in doing that from a grounded place rather than from defensive hypervigilance. Both paths are valid. What’s not sustainable is staying inside the anxiety without naming it and addressing it as the real clinical issue it is.
Rina, 34, a seventh-year associate at a V10 firm, came to therapy convinced that her anxiety was about whether she’d make partner. Eight months in, she had a different understanding: her anxiety was about whether she’d be acceptable. Good enough, feminine enough, ambitious enough but not too much. And the partner track had simply become the arena in which that much older, much deeper fear was playing out. When she could see that, the firm’s opaque feedback lost some of its power over her. Not because the feedback got clearer, but because she had become clearer. About what she wanted, what she was willing to pay for it, and what she wasn’t.
Deborah Tannen, PhD, professor of linguistics at Georgetown University, has written extensively on how language functions as a power tool in professional environments. And how women are often penalized for the same linguistic moves that earn men praise. Understanding that dynamic at a systemic level, rather than as a personal deficiency, allows women attorneys to make strategic choices about their communication rather than anxious ones. That’s not accommodation to the system. That’s informed navigation of it. There’s a difference, and it matters clinically.
The practical path forward for most women attorneys I work with involves parallel tracks: individual therapy to address the underlying patterns (perfectionism, approval-seeking, fear of visibility) that BigLaw is exploiting; executive coaching to develop concrete strategic tools for the firm-specific dynamics; and, when the relationship with the firm itself is part of the question, a careful, values-based assessment of what staying or leaving would actually cost and offer. All of this is available. None of it requires you to have it figured out before you begin. You can start the conversation at anniewright.com/connect. And we’ll figure out the right next step from there. The Strong and Stable newsletter also offers a weekly touchpoint that many attorneys describe as the most honest conversation they have all week.
Claude Steele, PhD, documented something important about stereotype threat: it doesn’t just impair performance. It impairs the person’s relationship to their own performance. When someone is chronically aware that their performance might confirm a stereotype, they can no longer evaluate their own work cleanly. Every mistake carries extra weight. Every success is insufficient proof. The feedback they receive is filtered through the threat, making accurate self-assessment nearly impossible.
You've been holding everything together. You're allowed to put some down.
A focused self-paced course on overfunctioning, achievement-first self-concept, and the trauma response that masquerades as a personality. Not a productivity problem. Not a boundary problem. A nervous system that learned competence was the only safety.
This is what partner-track anxiety does to women attorneys. It doesn’t just make the work harder. It makes the woman’s relationship to her own competence unstable. Prone to collapse under exactly the kind of evaluative pressure that the firm specializes in generating. She knows she’s good. Then she reads her evaluation, and she isn’t sure anymore. She makes a successful argument in court, and by the time she’s back at her desk, she’s already cataloguing the three things she could have done better. The anxiety is not an obstacle to good work. It has become part of the work itself, and it is exhausting to sustain.
The path out of this isn’t to stop caring about the work. It’s to build, alongside the professional identity, something that the firm cannot take away: a clear internal relationship to her own values, her own standards, and her own definition of what it means to do this work well. That internal relationship is what therapy builds. And it’s what makes it possible, eventually, to receive evaluative feedback. Even vague, biased, gendered feedback. Without it landing like a verdict on who she is.
Brené Brown, PhD, writes that belonging is not the same as fitting in. Fitting in requires changing yourself to match the environment. Belonging requires being yourself and being accepted anyway. Partner-track anxiety is, in part, the exhausting labor of fitting in. Of performing the version of yourself that the firm might eventually vote to accept. The therapeutic work is, in part, the slow recovery of the woman who doesn’t need the firm’s vote to know her own worth. That recovery is possible. It is not quick. It is worth it.
I work with women attorneys at every stage of this journey. From the mid-level associate who is first beginning to name the anxiety, to the senior partner who made it and still doesn’t feel like she belongs. If any of this resonates, the childhood wound quiz is a useful starting point. Many of the patterns that BigLaw exploits have much older roots than the firm itself. And connecting directly for a consultation is always available when you’re ready.
Q: Can my firm pay for executive coaching as a professional development benefit?
A: Many firms offer executive coaching as part of professional development, especially for associates on the partner track. Availability and coverage vary widely. It’s worth inquiring confidentially with your HR or professional development office. Coaching can help you navigate opaque feedback and build strategic client relationships. Frame the ask around performance optimization, not emotional support.
Q: Is therapy confidential if my firm uses a shared EAP?
A: Yes. Licensed therapists are bound by confidentiality laws, even when working through an EAP. Your individual sessions and records remain private. If you have concerns, discuss confidentiality explicitly with your therapist at the outset. Before sharing anything sensitive. Most therapists working with attorneys understand this concern and can walk you through the protections clearly.
Q: How do I know if I should stay or leave BigLaw?
A: This is a deeply personal decision that therapy and coaching can support. It involves clarifying your values, honestly assessing the cost to your health and relationships, and exploring your vision for a fulfilling career. Not the one BigLaw described for you. No one-size-fits-all answer exists. But you don’t have to make this decision from inside the anxiety it’s generating. Getting clear first, then deciding, is usually more useful than deciding in the middle of a crisis.
Q: My feedback says “leadership presence”. What does that actually mean?
A: “Leadership presence” is frequently vague feedback that can mask gendered expectations. It usually refers to how you carry yourself, your communication style, and how you fit the firm’s unspoken culture. Which was built around a specific masculine norm. Therapy and coaching can help you decode this feedback and develop authentic leadership strategies that don’t require erasing your identity. Sometimes asking for a specific example of what “more leadership presence” would look like is itself a useful move.
Q: I’ve worked 2,400 hours and I still don’t know if I’ll make partner. What do I do?
A: This uncertainty is a core driver of partner-track anxiety. And it’s worth separating your self-worth from the firm’s opaque criteria. Therapy can help you tolerate this uncertainty without it consuming your daily functioning, and develop strategies to either influence your trajectory or explore alternatives from a grounded place. You’re not required to wait passively. But you also don’t have to make permanent decisions from a state of chronic hypervigilance.
Q: Do you work specifically with women attorneys in BigLaw?
A: Yes. My clinical and coaching work specializes in supporting driven women attorneys navigating the unique pressures of BigLaw, including partner-track anxiety, burnout, and systemic gender bias. I understand the specific culture, the specific language, and the specific cost. Because I’ve worked with women inside it for years and I know how to distinguish the system’s dysfunction from the individual’s psychology.
Q: Is what I’m feeling burnout, anxiety, or something else?
A: Burnout and anxiety often overlap but are distinct. Burnout involves emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced efficacy. Anxiety centers on chronic worry, hypervigilance, and physiological arousal. Both are common in BigLaw women associates, and both require tailored treatment approaches. They can also both be present at the same time. Which is why clinical assessment rather than self-diagnosis is the more useful starting point.
Q: I made partner and I still feel this way. Is something wrong with me?
A: Nothing is wrong with you. What you’re describing. The absence of relief after achieving the goal you spent a decade working toward. Is clinically common and speaks to the nature of extrinsic validation as a primary motivator. Partnership delivered the credential, not the belonging or the meaning that you may have been seeking under the surface. That gap is worth exploring. Not to dismiss what you achieved, but to understand what you actually need now.
Related Reading
- Krill, Patrick R., JD, LLM, Johnson, Ryan, JD, and Albert, Lisa, PhD. “The Prevalence of Substance Use and Other Mental Health Concerns Among American Attorneys.” Journal of Addiction Medicine 10, no. 1 (2016): 46, 52. DOI: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000182.
- Daicoff, Susan Swaim, JD, MA. Lawyer, Know Thyself: A Psychological Analysis of Personality Strengths and Weaknesses. American Psychological Association, 2004.
- Bazelon, Lara, JD. Ambitious Like a Mother: Why Prioritizing Your Career and Family Can Work. And How to Make It Happen. PublicAffairs, 2021.
- Ibarra, Herminia, PhD. “Women’s Leadership Transitions: Informal Networks and the Challenge of Fit.” Harvard Business Review, 2017.
- Brown, Brené, PhD, LMSW. The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You’re Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are. Hazelden Publishing, 2010.
- Steele, Claude M., PhD. Whistling Vivaldi: How Stereotypes Affect Us and What We Can Do. W.W. Norton, 2010.
“I felt a Cleaving in my Mind , / As if my Brain had split , / I tried to match it , Seam by Seam , / But could not make them fit.”
EMILY DICKINSON, poem 937
References
Books & Cultural Sources (Chicago Author-Date)
- Brown, Brené. Daring Greatly. Penguin Audio, 2012.
Read Annie’s weekly essays on rebuilding after relational trauma.
Weekly Substack essays from Annie Wright, LMFT on relational trauma, recovery, and the House of Life framework. For driven women who want a structured path back to themselves.
WAYS TO WORK WITH ANNIE
Individual Therapy
Trauma-informed therapy for driven women healing relational trauma. Licensed in 11 jurisdictions.
Executive Coaching
Trauma-informed coaching for driven women navigating leadership and burnout.
Fixing the Foundations
Annie’s signature course for relational trauma recovery. Work at your own pace.
Strong & Stable
The Sunday conversation you wished you’d had years earlier. 25,000+ subscribers.
Annie Wright, LMFT
LMFT · Relational Trauma Specialist · W.W. Norton Author
Helping driven women finally feel as good as their résumé looks.
Annie Wright is a licensed psychotherapist (LMFT #95719) and trauma-informed executive coach with over 15,000 clinical hours. She works with driven women. Including Silicon Valley leaders, physicians, and entrepreneurs. In repairing the psychological foundations beneath their impressive lives. Annie is the founder and former CEO of Evergreen Counseling, a multimillion-dollar trauma-informed therapy center she built, scaled, and successfully exited. A regular contributor to Psychology Today, her expert commentary has appeared in USA Today, Forbes, Business Insider, Inc., NBC, and The Information. She is currently writing her first book with W.W. Norton.
Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist (LMFT #95719)
15,000+ direct clinical hours
California · Connecticut · Washington DC · Florida · Maine · Maryland · New Hampshire · New Jersey · Texas · Virginia · Washington
Creator of House of Life™ and Fixing the Foundations™
The Everything Years (W.W. Norton)
Founder & former CEO, Evergreen Counseling
Regular contributor to Psychology Today. Expert commentary has appeared in USA Today, Forbes, Business Insider, Inc., NBC, and The Information.
